IRC-SP-89 (Part II) - 2018 - Guideline For Design of Stabilised Pavement

IRC:SP:89 (Part II)-2018
Guidelines for the Design of

Stabilized Pavements
(Part II)
Published by:
INDIAN ROADS CONGRESS

Kama Koti Marg,
Sector-6, R.K. Puram,
New Delhi-110 022
May, 2018
Price : ` 800/-
(Plus Packing & Postage)
First Published : May, 2018
(All Rights Reserved. No part of this publication shall be reproduced,

translated or transmitted in any form or by any means without the
permission of the Indian Roads Congress)
Printed at India Offset Press, Delhi - 110 064

500 Copies
Contents
S.No. Description Page No.

Personnel of the Highways Specifications and Standards Committee i-ii
1 Introduction 1
2. Mechanism of Acceptance for CCS 3
3. Material Characterization 4
4. Design Methodology for Stabilized Pavements Using CCS/CS 7
5. Construction Practices 8
6. Performance Behavior 9
Annexure-I : Toxicity Leaching Testing on Stabilizers Mixed with Soil 10
Annexure-II A : Durability Testing for Stabilized Materials 11
Annexure-II B : Determination of Elastic Modulus “E” 16
Annexure-III A : Typical Sections 23
Annexure-III B : Mix Design Example 25
Annexure-IV : Recommended Specialized In-Situ Spreading and
Mixing Machinery for Stabilization 31
Guidelines for The Design of

Stabilized Pavements
1 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Stabilization has been use practice for many years now and has made vast
progress in improving the quality of pavements, as a result recent year have shown a rapid
progress in stabilization. The age long technique is not limited to subgrade or embankment
any more and has paved its way to the pavement layers like sub-base and base and in some
special cases even in wearing course.
1.2 IRC:SP:89-2010, deals with Soil and Granular Material Stabilization using Cement,
Lime & Fly Ash, which are traditionally being used as stabilizers to improve the strength and
durability characteristics of various types of soils and granular materials in pavement structure
and termed as Conventional Stabilizers (CS) in this document. In recent past, a number
of companies are promoting different types of Commercial Chemical Stabilizers (CCS) in
the market. The companies indicate that such stabilizers are special chemical compounds,
which have been evolved after a long research and should be mixed with cement to enhance
the strength and durability characteristics of soil cement mix. The dosage of such CCS to be
mixed varies from 0.5 per cent to 5.0 per cent of cement content. These chemical stabilizers
are available either in powder form or in liquid form. The categories of different CCS available
in the country are as follows:
a) Natural Inorganic Powder Binders
b) Water Repelling Nano Chemicals
c) Waste Oil
d) Petroleum Based Products
e) Liquid Stabilized Products
f) Synthetic Polymers
g) Sulphonate Lignin etc.
1.3 Some companies mix these chemical compounds in cement itself at the
manufacturing plant and sell such products (cement mixed with admixtures), with a commercial
name. Such products are ready to use and therefore can be directly mixed with soils or
granular materials for site specific requirements in the desired quantity as determined by
detailed laboratory/field tests. However, some companies provide the CCS separately, which
is required to be mixed at site with cement in a manner as suggested by the company before
being used with soil or granular materials. It is claimed that the materials stabilized with CCS
not only yield better strength but result in improved elastic and thermal properties of the mix
and therefore less prone to cracking and shrinkage cracks. Since long term performance of
roads constructed with such special products is not available, it becomes difficult to accept
such products for large scale application.
1
1.4 In order to promote stabilizers, this document has been brought out as an
addendum to IRC:SP:89-2010 as IRC:SP:89 (Part II) to deal with various aspects of
Commercial Chemical Stabilizers/Conventional Stabilizers. The addendum deals with issues
such as mechanism for acceptance of CCS/CS, test requirements, material characterization
and design aspects to be looked into while selecting any CCS/CS for the purpose of soil/
granular materials stabilization and/or construction of cementitious base and cementitious
sub-base layers or to improve CBR values of the sub-grades. Since long term performance
of roads constructed with such materials is not known, a conservative approach is being
suggested.
1.5 The task of preparation of IRC:SP:89 (Part II) “Guidelines for the Design of
Stabilized Pavements” was assigned to Composite Pavement Committee (H-9). The draft
was prepared by the subgroup comprising Dr. Sunil Bose, Shri Sudhir Mathur, Shri Bidur
Kant Jha and Shri Mohit Verma. The draft was deliberated in a series of meetings. The H-9
Committee finally approved the draft document in its meeting held on 9th September, 2017
and decided to send the final draft to IRC for placing before the HSS Committee.
The Composition of H-9 Committee is as given below:
Bongirwar, P.L. …… Convenor

Bordoloi, A.C. …… Co-Convenor
Thakar, Vikas …… Member-Secretary
Members
Arora, V.V. Kumar, Satander
Bhattacharyya, Shantanoo Nayak, Sanjay
Bose, Dr. Sunil Nirmal, S.K.
Chakraborty, Raj Pateriya, Dr. I.K.
Das, Prof. (Dr.) Animesh Sahoo, Prof. (Dr.) U.C.
Deshmukh, Dr. V.V. Sarma, Sivarama
Deshmukh, Yuvraj Talukdar, Biraj
Jain, L.K. Thombare, Vishal
Jain, R.K. Verma, Mohit
Jha, Bidur Kant Rep. of UltraTech Cement Ltd.
Kumar, Binod (Jain, A.K. upto 17.08.2016
thereafter Ramachandra, Dr. V.)
Corresponding Members
Pandey, Prof. (Dr.) B.B. Shukla, R.S.
Veeraragavan, Prof. (Dr.) A.
2
Ex-Officio Members
President, (Pradhan, N.K.), Engineer-in-Chief
Indian Roads Congress cum Secretary, Works Department,
Odisha
Director General (Kumar, Manoj), Ministry of Road
(Road Development) & Special Transport & Highways
Secretary to Govt. of India
Secretary General, Nirmal, Sanjay Kumar
Indian Roads Congress
The Highways Specifications and Standards Committee considered and approved the draft
document in its meeting held on 13th October, 2017. The Executive Committee in its meeting
held on 2nd November, 2017 considered and approved the same for placing it before the
Council. The Council of IRC in its 213th meeting held at Bengaluru on 3rd November, 2017
considered and approved the draft IRC:SP:89 (Part II) “Guidelines for The Design of Stabilized
Pavements” for printing.
2 MECHANISM OF ACCEPTANCE FOR CCS
2.1 The following two documents shall be checked and carefully examined before
accepting any commercial stabilizers for field trial:
• Base Document of Product

CCS varies in composition and effectiveness. The addition of CCS in soil and/or granular
material may result in reduction of plasticity, change in gradation and improvement in strength
and durability characteristics of the mix. Therefore, the Engineer must thoroughly examine
the base documents provided by the supplier/company for such unproven products. The
document should provide the basic information such as:
(i) Broad chemical composition
(ii) Place of manufacturing
(iii) Locations of successful field applications and
(iv) Other relevant information pertaining to the product
The document should also bring out in terms of test results, the advantage of using CCS
vis-a-vis conventional stabilizers such as cement or lime-flash-cement etc. in improving the
strength and durability characteristics of the soil/granular materials proposed to be used for
road works. It must be ensured that the CCS materials do not contain toxic/heavy metals
which due to leach ability may affect the soil, plants and ground water. The test methods for
obtaining the test results and certificate for the same is given in Annexure-I.
3
• Certificate of Usage
Certificate of Usage from the Country of Origin with successful project reports and field
evaluation reports on roads in our climatic conditions. If the product is in existence in India
for more than 2 years and has been tested for some experimental road trials, the supplier
should also furnish the following information:
i. Certificate of usage in India in last 2 years.
ii. Success rate of the new technology in Indian condition as per last 2 years
data.
iii. Quantum of work completed in Government Projects using new technology.
iv. Field Evaluation report by Government Institutes/Organizations on roads
constructed with new technology in different regions with varied climatic
conditions viz., sub-zero, Snow-bound, high rain fall conditions, etc.
For Proven Products

In case the CCS has been already proven for successful usage in different weathering
conditions in India for any category of roads, test reports of such road tracks done should be
furnished and shall be alone adequate for its considerations if a separate fatigue equation for
such stabilizer is developed through reputed Institute like IIT’s, NIT’s, CRRI etc., the same
can be used at the discretion of the user.
3 MATERIAL CHARACTERIZATION
3.1 Requirement for Soil Modification/Subgrade Improvement

CCS/CS can be used for soil modification or improvement of subgrade soil or for construction
of cementitious base/sub-base layers meeting the requirements as laid-down in the latest
edition of IRC:37. It is recommended from economic consideration that mix-in-place methods
of construction be used for subgrade improvement. The main requirement for CCS/CS
modification or stabilization of subgrade soils shall remain the same as given in Table 6 of
IRC:SP:89-2010. In case the subgrade soil is highly plastic, it can be modified with lime and/
or flyash before being mixed with CCS/CS. The technical requirements for lime and flyash
modification for subgrade improvement shall remain the same as given under Clause 4.3 to
4.6 in IRC:SP:89-2010.
3.2 Requirement for Stabilized Sub-base/Base

Materials which shall be considered for the construction of cementitious sub-base/base
layers in a pavement structure stabilized with CCS/CS are as given below:
i. All types of aggregates including marginal aggregates*
ii. Reclaimed Asphalt Pavement Material
iii. Reclaimed Concrete Pavement Material
4
iv. Industrial Waste

v. Mines Waste
vi. Construction and Demolition Wastes
vii. All types of soil-granular materials mixes having PI<20 for sub-base and
PI<10 for base
It is required that the materials shall conform to the gradation as mentioned in Table 1. In
case the materials do not meet the gradation and other physical properties but satisfying the
strength, durability with residual strength and toxicity, shall be considered after exhaustive
research and development by any reputed Institute/Organization like IIT’s, NIT’s, CRRI etc.
*Marginal Aggregate: A marginal materials can be defined as materials which do not in their
present form possess quality levels as defined by current highway standards sufficient for their
use as various pavement structural components including surfaces, bases, and/or subbases.
Aggregate produced from a more weathered or weather prone rock, or hard rock containing
weathered seams or weaker sedimentary rocks, which after processing contains moderate or
highly plastic fines, is susceptible to weathering and when compacted will produce a soaked
C.B.R. value between 40 per cent and 100 per cent.
Table 1 Gradation Requirements for Sub-base and Base Layer Material
Sr. Gradation Reference

Material
No. Base Sub-base Specification
All types of aggregates including
i.
marginal aggregates
Reclaimed Asphalt Pavement
ii. Grading IV, Specification
Material Table 400-4,
Table 400-1, for Road and
Reclaimed Concrete Pavement Clause 403.2.2
iii. Clause 401.2 Bridge Works,
Material
Ministry of
Industrial, Construction and
iv. Road Transport
Demolition Wastes
& Highways
v. Mines Waste Table 400-3, Clause 402.3.2
All types of soil having PI<20 for
vi. Table 400-3, Clause 402.3.2
sub-base and PI<10 for base
3.3 Test Requirements

It shall be noted that CCS/CS can be toxic and may pollute the soil, plant/human/animal/
aquatic life and underground water through leaching and hence every CCS/CS must be
checked for presence of heavy metals, toxicity and leaching with reference to Annexure-I.
CSIR laboratory at Lucknow has the facility of conducting tests there may be few accredited
laboratory having the facility to conduct the test.
All the properties of material to be stabilized with CCS/CS and intended to be used in various
layers of the pavement structure shall be checked as per IRC:37 & IRC:SP:89-2010 and the
5
relevant clauses of MoRTH Specifications for Road and Bridge Works, 2013, along with the
following considerations:
i. For CCS/CS stabilized sub-base material, the durability shall be checked by the
Method 1, Clause 4.7.2, IRC:SP:89-2010.
(It may please be noted that this test has not been specified for cement stabilized sub-bases.)
ii. For CCS/CS stabilized base material, the durability shall be checked by the
Method 2, Clause 4.7.2, IRC:SP:89-2010. This test is as per ASTM D-559 for
wetting and drying and ASTM D-560 for freezing and thawing. Freezing and
Thawing procedure is required to be followed, if the stabilization is to be done
in snow bound areas or where the minimum temperature is under sub-zero
conditions. Refer Annexure-II A and B for details of tests.
iii. As specified by AASHTO and ASTM, a brush is being used in a standardized
manner to evaluate material loss in the durability test. A mechanical brushing
apparatus has been developed by CSIR, South Africa that would brush the
specimens using a consistent effort. However, such equipment is not widely
available in India therefore either of the brushing methods can be adopted as per
the availability. The brushing apparatus is shown in Fig. 1 below:
Fig. 1 Automated Brushing Apparatus
6
3.4 Requirement for Crack Relief Layer on CCS/CS Stabilized Base Layer
A crack relief layer shall be provided on CCS/CS stabilized base layer designed for traffic
>=2 MSA. The crack relief could be either Aggregate Interlayer or Stress Absorbing Membrane
Interlayer (SAMI) or emulsion stabilized/foam bitumen layer as allowed in IRC:37.
4 DESIGN METHODOLOGY FOR STABILIZED PAVEMENTS USING CCS/CS
4.1 The design methodology for CCS/CS stabilized pavements shall remain the same
as provided in IRC:37. The following types of pavement with CCS/CS can be considered
with bituminous surfacing and a crack relief layer in terms of Aggregate or Stress Absorbing
Membrane Interlayer (SAMI):
• Stabilized Bases with Stabilized Sub-bases
• Stabilized Bases with Granular Sub-bases
• Granular Bases with Stabilized Sub-bases
4.2 Design Considerations for Sub-base and Base

Elastic Modulus: The relevant design parameter for bound sub-bases is the elastic modulus
E, which can be estimated from the unconfined compressive strength of the material. The
elastic modulus must be calculated by the following equation:
MR = 1000 x UCS for Rapid Hardening CS
MR = 750 x UCS for Slow Hardening CCS/CS
Where, E = Elastic Modulus of Stabilized Material
UCS = Unconfined Compressive Strength in MPa (7 and 28 days for Rapid Hardening &
Slow Hardening Stabilizers respectively)
For design, 20% of E value derived from above given relation shall be taken. In case the
elastic modulus is derived by 4 point beam testing with dynamic loading machine, the
E value for design shall be taken directly with a minimum factor of safety of 1.5. The detailed
procedure of testing & calculating elastic modulus value by 4 point Beam testing is given in
Annexure – II B. However in this case the E value should be restricted to 1700 Mpa.
Flexural strength can be taken as 20% of UCS
Bound Sub Base Layer: Since the sub-base acts as a platform for construction traffic, low
strength sub-base is expected to crack during construction, therefore for such cases, a design
value of 600 MPa is recommended for design, though the modulus value as calculated by
equation (1) may be in the range of 2000 MPa to 4000 MPa. The Poisson’s ratio may be
taken as 0.25. The CCS/CS stabilized layer shall be cured for minimum 15 days before the
construction of the subsequent layer. If the stabilized sub-base layer have UCS in the range
of 0.75 to 1.5 MPa, the recommended E value for design shall be 400 MPa.
7
Bound Base Layer: Flexure strength of a CCS/CS stabilized base is critical to the satisfactory
performance of a bituminous pavement. Stabilized base layer may consist of soil or aggregate
or soil-aggregate mixture stabilized with CCS/CS. It is required that stabilized mix should
give a minimum strength of 4.5 to 7 MPa. It is recommended that the laboratory strength
shall be at least 1.1 times higher than the design strength due to variability of construction in
field. The upper limits of E value for base layer is restricted to 1400 and 1700 MPa by UCS
and Beam method respectively. The fatigue strength is required for carrying out the fatigue
damage analysis of CCS/CS treated base. Cumulative damage analysis as suggested in
IRC:37 shall be carried out.
4.3 Pavement Design Procedure

4.3.1 The design procedure as provided in IRC:37 including cumulative damage analysis
shall be followed with design parameters as proposed above. There can be large number of
combinations for a good pavement depending upon the availability of materials. Some of the
typical sections are given in Annexure - III.
5 CONSTRUCTION PRACTICES
5.1 The construction of CCS/CS stabilized layer follow the same basic procedure as
explained in Chapter 5 of IRC:SP:89-2010. Two methods of stabilization as indicated below
can be used:
1. Mix-in-place Stabilization
2. Plant-mix Stabilization
5.2 The procedure explained in above given reference shall be followed with following
considerations:
For Mix-in-place Stabilization, specialized stabilization machinery shall be
used capable of providing in-situ rock/boulder crushing-cum-pulverizing-cum-
homogenizing features and for a constant depth/uniform operation. Manual mixing
methods using labour/agriculture based methodology shall not be permitted except
for low volume roads, where the depth of mixing of loose soil with the additive is not
more than 100 mm-120 mm. Some of the recommended specialized machinery
types are given in Annexure - IV.
For Plant-mix Stabilization, calibration of plant (Concrete batch mix/WMM) with
the CCS shall be done to achieve the proper homogeneity of all the material as
per specified combinations.
Success of stabilization technology depends on effective mixing of ingredients
including stabilizers hence good quality equipment is must. Dosage of admixtures
/stabilizers could be less than 3 per cent for few products hence intimate mixing
through good effective equipment is essential.
8
6 PERFORMANCE BEHAVIOR
6.1 The resilient modulus and permanent deformation are important properties and
shall be evaluated. The performance evaluation shall include the following field testing:
a) Resilient Modulus of different layers by Falling Weight Deflectometer (FWD)
or by means of extracting cores from the 28 days cured layers for UCS testing
to arrive at E-Values.
b) Deformation of different layers by Ground Penetrating Radar (GPR)
c) Surface Irregularities by Visual Inspection
6.2 Manufacturer of a CCS shall submit report on performance evaluation done by
reputed Government Organization/Institution like NIT’s, CRRI, IIT’s or any NABL approved
laboratory.
6.3 The performance evaluation report of roads constructed with such stabilizers shall
be evolved after two years of trial with a frequency of two times every year.
6.4 Routine visual observations shall be taken and recorded monthly.
9
ANNEXURE-I
TOXICITY LEACHING TESTING ON STABILIZERS MIXED WITH SOIL
(Refer Clause 2.1 and 3.3)
The study shall be conducted according to the USEPA Guidelines (1311 of July 1992) for
Toxicity Characteristics Leaching Procedure (TCLP).
TCLP is a soil sample extraction method for chemical analysis. When a material is disposed
in landfills, hazardous substances contained in them may enter the environment. So to
classify that material as hazardous, the regulatory test TCLP determines the quantity of
hazardous substances leaching from a material under simulated conditions. If the levels
of the hazardous chemicals are below TCLP limits for that particular chemical entity, the
material can be disposed off in a municipal landfill without any treatment. If the levels exceed
the limits, then the material has to be disposed off in a secured landfill or has to undergo
further treatment for neutralization or stabilization.
The stabilizer shall be mixed with dried and sieved soil in recommended w/w ratio, water
added, mixed thoroughly and can be casted in proctor moulds. Water containing mixed spiking
solution of chromium, nickel, copper and lead shall be added in another set of samples.
This shall be carried out as per IS 4332 part 3. The Stabilized samples shall be extracted
in closed vessels with the leaching solution at pH 2.88 ± 0.05 as per TCLP protocol at
30 ± 2 rpm for 18 ± 2 hours at ambient temperature (23 ± 2°C). The resultant leachates shall
be filtered, processed and analysed on Atomic Absorption Spectrometer for different metals
using standard protocols (APHA, 2005). All the leaching studies shall be done in triplicate
and the mean results shall be present.
The moulds of soil samples along with the controls shall be crushed, dried, sieved and tested
for the leaching of metals (Chromium, Nickel, Lead and Copper) as per TCLP of USEPA
(1311 of July 1992). The results shall indicate the levels of all the metals in reference with
limits prescribed by USEPA for TCLP.
The testing shall be done by any organization/institution working under CSIR like Indian
Institute of Toxicology Research, Lucknow and National Environmental Engineering Research
Institute, Nagpur etc.
10
ANNEXURE-II A
DURABILITY TESTING FOR STABILIZED MATERIALS
(Refer Clause 3.3)
To determine the resistance of compacted stabilized materials to repeated adverse weather
conditions. The test procedure is followed as per IS Code IS: 4332 (Part IV): Methods of test
for stabilized soils: wetting and drying, freezing and thawing tests for compacted soil-cement
mixtures.
Procedure for Wetting and Drying

A representative sample weighing about 20 kg or more of the thoroughly mixed material shall
be made to pass through 20 mm and 4.75 mm: IS Sieves, separating the fractions retained
and passing these sieves. Care shall be exercised so as not to break the aggregates while
pulverising. The percentage of each fraction shall be determined. The fraction retained on
20 mm IS Sieve shall not be used in the test. The percentage of soil coarser than 4.75 mm
IS Sieve and the percentage of soil coarser than 20 mm IS Sieve shall be determined. The
ratio of fraction passing 20 mm IS sieve and retained on 4.75 mm IS Sieve to the soil passing
4.75 mm IS Sieve shall be determined. The material retained on and passing 4.75 mm IS Sieve
shall be mixed thoroughly in the determined proportion to obtain about 16 kg of soil sample.
A representative sample weighing approximately 16 kg of the thoroughly mixed material shall
be taken. The soil, potable water and required amount of CCS/CS shall be mixed properly.
The mixture should be broken up without reducing the natural size of individual particles. The
specimens shall be formed by immediately compacting the soil-cement mixture in the mould
(with the collar attached) and later trimming the specimens. In addition the tops of the first
and second layers shall be scarified to remove smooth compaction planes before placing
and compacting the succeeding layers. This scarification shall form groove at right angles to
each other approximately 3 mm in width and 3 mm in depth and approximately 6 mm apart.
During compaction, a representative sample of the soil-CCS/CS mixture weighing not less
than 100 g shall be taken from the batch for moisture content determination. The compacted
specimens shall be weighed with the mould. The specimens shall then be removed from the
mould. The oven-dry density in g/cm3 shall be calculated. The specimens shall be identified
suitably as No. 1 and 2. These specimens may be used to obtain data on moisture and
volume changes during the test. Two more specimens shall be similarly formed and their
moisture content and dry density be determined. These specimens shall be identified as
No. 3 and 4 and used to obtain data on soil-CCS/CS losses during the test. The average
diameter and height of specimens No.1 and 2 shall be measured and their volume shall be
determined. All the four specimens shall be placed on suitable carriers in the moist chamber
and protected from free water for a period of seven days. Specimens No. 1 and 2 should be
weighed and measured at the end of the seven-day period to provide data for calculating
their moisture content and volume.
At the end of the storage in the moist room, the specimens shall be submerged in potable
water at room temperature for a period of 5 h, refer Photo 1 and removed. Specimens No.
1 and 2 shall be weighed and their dimensions measured. All four specimens shall then be
placed in an oven at 70°C for 42 h and removed. Specimens No. 1 and 2 shall be weighed
11
and their dimensions measured again. Specimens No. 3 and 4 shall be given two firm strokes
on all areas with the wire-scratch brush. The brush shall be held with the long axis of the
brush parallel to the longitudinal axis of the specimen or parallel to the ends as required for
covering all areas of the specimen. These strokes shall be applied to full height and width
of the specimen with a firm stroke corresponding to approximately 1.4 kg. 18 to 20 vertical
brush strokes may be required to cover the sides of the specimen twice and four strokes may
be required at each end, the above process constitute one cycle (48 h ) of wetting and drying.
The specimens shall again be submerged in water and the same procedure continued for 12
cycles. Testing of No. 1 and 2 specimens may be discontinued prior to 12 cycles should the
measurements become inaccurate due to soil-CCS/CS loss of the specimen. After 12 cycles
of test, the specimens shall be dried to constant weight at 110°C and weighed to determine
the oven-dry weight of the specimens. The data collected will permit calculations of volume
and moisture changes of specimen’s No. 1 and 2, and the soil-CCS/CS losses of Specimen’s
No. 3 and 4 after the prescribed 12 cycles of test.
For Specimen’s No. 1 and 2 the difference between the volumes of specimens, refer Photo 2,
at the time of moulding and subsequent volumes as a percentage of the original volume
should be calculated. The moisture content of Specimens No.1 and 2 at the time of moulding
and subsequent moisture contents should be calculated as a percentage of the original
oven-dry weight of the specimen. The oven-dry weight of Specimen’s No. 3 and 4 shall be
corrected for water that has reacted with the CCS/CS and soil during the test and is retained
in the specimen at 110°C, as follows:
Corrected oven-dry weight = Wd X 100/(w+100)
Where,
Wd = oven-dry weight after drying at 110°C, and
w = percentage of water retained in specimen.
Photo 1 Photo 2
Durability Test in Progress (Wetting and Drying)
12
The percentage of water retained in the Specimens No. 3 and 4 after drying at 110°C for
use in the above formula may be assumed to be equal to the average percentage of water
retained in specimen No. 1 and 2. The soil cement loss of specimens MO. 3 and 4 shall be
calculated as a percentage of the original oven-dry weight of the specimen as follows:
Soil cement loss, percent = A/B x 100
Where,
A = original calculated oven-dry weight minus final corrected oven-dry weight
B = original calculated oven-dry weight.
Procedure for Freezing and Thawing

The soil sample and specimens shall be prepared in accordance with the procedure given in
wetting and drying.
At the end of the storage in the moist room, water saturated felts about 5 mm thick, blotters
or similar absorptive material shall be placed between the specimens and the carriers. The
assembly shall be placed in a freezing cabinet having a constant temperature not warmer
than -23°C, refer Photo 3 and 4 for 24 h and removed. The No. 1 and 2 Specimens shall
be weighed and measured. The assembly should then be placed in the moist chamber or
suitably covered container having a temperature of 25°C to 30°C and a relative humidity
of 100 per cent for 23 h and removed. Free potable water shall be made available to the
absorbent pads under the specimens to permit the specimens to absorb water by capillary
action during the thawing period. The No. 1 and 2 Specimens shall be measured and weighed.
Specimens No. 3 and 4 shall be given two firm strokes on all areas with the wire-scratch
brush. The brush shall be held with the long axis of the brush parallel to the longitudinal axis
of the specimen or parallel to the ends as required for covering all areas of the specimen.
The strokes shall be applied to the full height and width of the specimen with a firm stroke
corresponding to approximately 1.4 kg. Eighteen to twenty vertical brush strokes are required
to cover the sides of the specimen twice and four strokes are required on each end. After
being brushed, the specimens shall be turned over end for end before they are placed on
the water saturated pads. The specimens shall be placed in the freezing cabinet and the
procedure continued for 12 cycles. The No. 1 and 2 Specimens may be discontinued prior
to 12 cycles should the measurements become inaccurate due to soil- CCS/CS loss of the
specimen. After 12 cycles of test, the specimens shall be dried to constant weight at 110°C
and weighed to determine the oven-dry weight of the specimens. The data collected will
permit calculations of volume and moisture changes of Specimens No.1 and 2 and the soil-
cement losses of Specimens No. 3 and 4 after the prescribed 12 cycles of test. The volume
and moisture changes and the soil-CCS/CS losses of the specimens should be calculated as
given in wetting-drying procedure.
13
Photo 3 Photo 4
Durability Test in Progress (Freezing and Thawing)
Report: The report should include the following:

a) The designed optimum moisture and maximum density of the moulded
specimens.
b) The moisture content and density obtained in moulded specimens.
c) The designed CCS/CS content, in per cent, of the moulded specimens.
d) The CCS/CS content, in per cent, obtained in moulded specimens.
e) The maximum volume change, in per cent, and maximum moisture content
during test of Specimen’s No. 1 and 2.
f) The soil- CCS/CS loss, in per cent, of Specimen’s No. 3 and 4.
g) Residual Strength, UCS test shall be carried out on the specimen remained
after 12 cycles of wet/dry or freeze/thawing. The residual UCS strength shall
not be less that 20 per cent of 28 days UCS strength.
h) The following limits of mass loss for different materials recommended by
PCA(1992) may be adopted:
AASTHO Soil Group Unified Soil Group Maximum Allowable
Weight Loss %
A-1-a GW, GP, GM, SW, SP, SM 14
A-1-b GM, GP, SM, SP 14
A-2 GM, GP, SM, SC 14*
A-3 SP 14
A-4 CL, ML 10
A-5 ML, MH, CH 10
A-6 CL, CH 7
A-7 OH, MH, CH 7
*10% is the maximum allowable weight loss for A-2-6 and A-2-7 soils
14
Test Sheet for Durability
Durability Wetting And Drying (As Per IS :4332,Part-4)

Project : Client:
Sample ID: Date of Receiving:
Source: Date of Casting:
Location: Final Testing Date:
Material
Description:
Sample-1 Sample-2
Initial Weight : Initial Weight :
Cycle No. Weight Loss % Loss Cycle No. Weight Loss % Loss
After Each After Each
Cycle (g.) Cycle (g.)
1 1
. .
. .
12 12
Remarks:
15
ANNEXURE-II B
DETERMINATION OF ELASTIC MODULUS “E”
(Refer Clause 3.3 and 4.2)
Determination of elastic modulus of the mix to be used in design of pavements is of paramount
importance to replicate the performance on field. The following methods to arrive at the
design modulus are described in this section:
Method 1:- Correlation of unconfined compressive strength and elastic modulus.
Method 2:- Determination of elastic modulus by third point beam load test.
For the determination of unconfined compressive strength, IS: 4332 (Part V)-1970
Determination of Unconfined Compressive Strength of Stabilized Soils is to be followed. The
selection of sample type depends upon the gradation of samples that is to be stabilized:
a) Fine-Grained - Not less than about 90 per cent of the soil passing a 2.36 mm
IS Sieve.
b) Medium-Grained - Not less than about 90 per cent of the soil passing a
20 mm IS Sieve
c) Coarse-Grained - Not less than about 90 per cent of the soil passing a
40 mm IS Sieve.
Table A: Standard Mould for determination of Unconfined Compressive Strength
Fine Grained Medium Grained Coarse Grained

Mould Type Cylindrical Cylindrical Cube
Mould Size 100 mm High x 50 mm 200 mm High x 100 mm 150 mm ± 0.2 mm
Mean Diameter Mean Diameter
It should be noted that in the UCS test the results can be affected by both the size and shape
of the sample tested, e.g. a cube or cylinder specimen. The results are often converted to
those for 150 mm cube by multiplying the result with a correction factor. Some correction
factors are given in table below:
Table B: Conversion Factors for UCS Test
Specimen Shape and Size Correction Factor (to 150 mm cube)

Cube –150 mm 1.00
Cube –100 mm 0.96
Cylinder – 200 mm x 100 mm mean Dia. 1.25
Cylinder – 115.5 x 105 mm mean Dia. 1.04
The equipment’s available these days are supplying the results in two units, one in Kilogram –
Force and other in Newton. The unit majorly used in design of pavement with IITpave software
16
is MPa for UCS and Elastic modulus. Thus the care must be administered to convert the test
values to MPa before applying the values in design.
As per Section 7.2.2.2 of IRC:37-2012 (for Stabilized Sub base)
“The relevant design parameter for bound sub-bases is the Elastic Modulus E, which
can be determined from the unconfined compressive strength of the material. In case of
cementitious granular sub-base having a 7-day UCS of 1.5 to 3 MPa, the laboratory based E
value (AUSTROADS) is given by the following equations:
Ecgsb = 1000 * UCS ……A1
Where UCS = 28 day strength of the cementitious granular material
Equation A1 gives a value in the range of 2000 to 4000 MPa. Since the sub-base acts as a
platform for the heavy construction traffic, low strength cemented sub-base is expected to
crack during the construction and a design value of 600 MPa is recommended for the stress
analysis. Poisson’s ratio may be taken as 0.25.
If the stabilized soil sub-bases have 7-day UCS values in the range 0.75 to 1.5 MPa, the
recommended E value for design is 400 MPa with Poisson’s ratio of 0.25.
It is also to be noted that “Where commercially available stabilizers are used, the stabilized
material should meet additional requirements of leachability and concentration of heavy
metals apart from the usual requirements of strength and durability.”
For Stabilized base, section 7.3.2 “Cementetious Bases” reads
“7.3.2 Cementitious bases

7.3.2.1 Cemented base layers may consist of aggregates or soils or both stabilized with
chemical stabilizers such as cement, lime, lime-flyash or other stabilizers which are required
to give a minimum strength of 4.5 to 7 MPa in 7/28 days. While the conventional cement
should attain the above strength in seven days (IRC:SP:89-2010(30)), lime or lime-flyash
stabilized granular materials and soils should meet the above strength requirement in 28
days since strength gain in such materials is a slow process. Though the initial modulus of
the cementitious bases may be in the range 10000 to 15000 MPa, the long term modulus
of the cemented layer may be taken as fifty per cent of the initial modulus due to shrinkage
cracks and construction traffic (65, 66). Australian guidelines recommend use of Equation
7.2 for the cemented layer. Curing of cemented bases after construction is very important
for achieving the required strength as described in IRC:SP:89 and curing should start
immediately by spraying bitumen emulsion or periodical mist spray of water without flooding
or other methods.
7.3.2.2 Strength parameter
Flexural strength is required for carrying out the fatigue analysis as per fatigue equation.
MEPDG suggests that the modulus of rupture for chemically stabilized bases can be taken
as 20 per cent of the 28 day unconfined compressive strength. The same is recommended
17
in these guidelines. The following default values of modulus of rupture are recommended for
cementitious bases (MEPDG).
Cementitious stabilized aggregates – 1.40 MPa
Lime—flyash-soil – 1.05 MPa
Soil cement – 0.70 MPa
Poisson’s ration of the cemented layers may be taken as 0.25.”
Determination of elastic modulus beam load test

Elastic Modulus test are conducted in order to check whether stabilized mixture layer act
as flexible or rigid, so that if the Modulus of Elasticity is high, the pavement consisting of
stabilized layer and bituminous layer will be considered as semi-rigid and then the suitability
of Stabilized layer as a base layer will be compared with respect to semi rigid pavement. The
equipment shall be computerized cyclic beam loading set up. To determine the flexural strength
of casted beams, it consists of three points loading, and the test shall be conducted at different
amplitude and frequencies for finding the maximum elasticity modulus. The recommended
specimen sizes, to be used in Laboratory are 500×100×100 mm and 300×75×75 mm.
Procedure: Soil-Stabilizer shall be mixed either by hand or in a suitable laboratory mixer
in batches of such size as to leave ten per cent excess after molding test specimens. This
material shall be protected against loss of moisture, and a representative part of it shall be
weighed and dried in the drying oven to constant weight to determine the actual moisture
content of the Soil-Stabilizer mixture. When the Soil-Stabilizer mixture contains aggregate
retained on the 4.75 mm sieve, the sample for moisture determination shall weigh at least
500 g and shall be weighed to the nearest gram. If the mixture does not contain aggregate
retained on the 4.75 mm sieve, the sample shall weigh at least 100 g and shall be weighed to
the nearest 0.1 g. The batch shall be mixed in a clean, damp, metal pan or on top of a steel
table, with a blunt brick-layer’s trowel, using the following procedures:
a) Calculated amount of water to give moisture content 2 per cent less than the
required final moisture content should be added to the soil passing 4.75 mm IS
Sieve, thoroughly mixed and kept in a sealed container to avoid moisture loss
overnight for uniform distribution of moisture.
b) The additional water required for bringing the moisture to the required level should
be calculated. The calculated weight of the moist soil and stabilizer required for
making the specimens should be mixed thoroughly. The remaining quantity of
water to make up the required moisture content of the Soil-Stabilizer mixture
should be added and thoroughly mixed.
c) The saturated surface-dry coarse fraction of the soil shall be added and the entire
batch mixed until the coarse fraction is uniformly distributed throughout the batch.
Divide it into three equal batches of predetermined weight of uniformly mixed Soil-Stabilizer
to make a beam of the designed density. Place one batch of the material in the mould and
level by hand. When the Soil-Stabilizer contains aggregate retained on the 4.75 mm sieve,
18
carefully spade the mix around the sides of the mould with a thin spatula. Compact the
Soil-Stabilizer initially from the bottom up by steadily and firmly forcing (with little impact) a
square-end cut 12 mm diameter smooth steel rod repeatedly, through the mixture from the
top down to the point of refusal. Approximately 90 rods distributed uniformly over the cross-
section of the mould are required; take care so as not to leave holes in clayey Soil-Stabilizer
mixtures. Level this layer of compacted Soil-Stabilizer by hand and place and compact layers
two and three in an identical manner. The specimen at this time shall be approximately 95
mm high. Place the top plate of the mould in position and remove the spacer bars. Obtain.
Final compaction with a static load applied by the compression machine or Compression
frame until the height of 75 mm is reached. Immediately after compaction, carefully dismantle
the mould and remove the specimen onto a smooth, rigid wood or sheet metal pallet. Flexural
test of moist cured specimens shall be made as soon as practicable after removing from the
moist room, and during the period between removal from the moist room and testing, the
specimens shall be kept, moist by the wet burlap or blanket covering.
Turn the specimen on its side with respect to its molded position (with the original top and
bottom surfaces as molded perpendicular to the testing machine bed) and center it on the lower
half-round steel supports, which shall have been spaced apart a distance of three times the
depth of the beam. Place the load applying block assembly in contact with the upper surface
of the beam at the third points between the supports refer Photo 5. Carefully align the center
of the beam with the center of thrust of the spherically seated head block of the machine.
As this block is brought to bear on the beam-loading assembly, rotate its movable portion
gently by hand so that uniform seating is obtained. Apply the load continuously and without
shock with a screw power testing machine, with the moving head operating at approximately
1.2 mm/min. With hydraulic machines adjust the loading to such a constant rate that the
extreme fiber stress is within the limits of 7 ± 0.4 kg/cm2/min. Record the total load at failure
of the specimen to the nearest 3 kg. Make measurements to the nearest 0.2 mm to determine
the average width and depth of the specimens at the section of failure.
Photo 5 E-Value Test in Progress
19
Calculation and Report: If the fracture occurs within the middle third of the span length,
calculate the modulus of rupture as follows:
R = Pl/bd2 -- (weight of beam neglected)
R = (P + 3W/4) l/bd2 (weight of beam taken into account)
Where,
R = modulus of rupture in kg/cm2,
P = maximum applied load in kg,
l = span length in cm,
b = average width of specimen in cm,
d = average depth of specimen in cm, and
W = weight of the specimen in kg.
If the fracture occurs outside the middle third of the span length by not more than 5 per cent
of the span length, calculate the modulus of rupture as follows:
R =3Pa/bd2
Where,
a = distance between line of fracture and the nearest support, measured along the center line
of the bottom surface of the beam (as tested).
The report shall include the following:
a) Specimen preparation details;
b) Specimen identification number;
c) Average width and depth at section of failure to the nearest 0.2 mm;
d) Maximum load, to the nearest 5 kg;
e) Modulus of rupture calculated to the nearest 0.5 kg/cm2;
f) Defects, if any, in specimen;
g) Age of specimen; and
h) Moisture content at time of test.
Sample Calculation
<Sample Description> % Material + % Stabilizer
Test Type: Flexure
Sample Id:
Test Date:
Sample Type Id: 0
20
Sample Height:100(mm)
Sample Width:100(mm)
Sample Length:500(mm)
Sample Diameter: -(mm)
Sample Area:50000(Sq. mm)
Sample Weight... (Kg)
Sample Age:28 days Cured
Rate of Loading:0.01 ((KN/Sec))
Testing Person :
Graph: Load versus Displacement Graph
Table: Calculation of E-Value
Calculation of E-Value
1 Failure Load (P) KN
2 Corresponding Disp. (d) Mm
Length (L) Mm
3 Dimension of Beam Breadth (B) Mm
Width (D) Mm
4 Avg. P’=P/d (from graph) KN/mm
5 Failure Load (P) N
6 Effective Length of Beam (L) Mm
7 Moment of Inertia = I= (B*D3/12) mm4
8 L/3=a Mm
9 E= Pa(3L2-4a2)/24*I MPa
21
The combinations of the seating loads applied for dynamic loading should be suitably adjusted.
The factor of safety 1.5 to be considered for design the elastic modulus obtained with beam
dynamic test.
Considering beam test apparatus is not commonly available it is recommended to keep the
basis of E value as UCS test which is more commonly available across various laboratories
in country.
At the same time the commercial stabilizers must develop their own fatigue equation and get
it verified by Government institutes like IIT.
For CCS a relationship as shown below needs to be developed between compressive
strength and elastic modulus
Dynamic Modulus (GPa)
Limestone Zone 2 Gravel Sand Clay

Gravel Zone 2
Granite Zone 3
Gravel Zone 3 Sand Zone 5
Silty Sand Zone 6
Clayey Sand Zone 7
Compressive Strength (MPa)
Relationship between dynamic modulus and compressive strength (at 28 days) for some
cement treated materials (Croney, 1998)
22
ANNEXURE – III A
TYPICAL SECTIONS
(Refer Clause 4.3)
Fig. 2 Bituminous Pavements with Stabilized Base and Stabilized Granular Sub-base with
Crack Relief Interlayer
Fig. 3 Bituminous Pavements with Stabilized Base and Stabilized Soil Sub-base with Crack
Relief Interlayer and Drainage Layer
23
Fig. 4 Bituminous Pavements with Stabilized Base and Granular Sub-base

with Crack Relief Interlayer
Fig. 5 Bituminous Pavements with Granular Base and Stabilized Granular Sub-base
Fig. 6 Bituminous Pavements with Granular Base and Stabilized Soil Sub-base
with Drainage Layer
24
ANNEXURE-III B
MIX DESIGN EXAMPLE
(Refer Clause 4.3)
INPUT PARAMETERS
Design Traffic Loading (MSA)

The new composite pavement has been designed for full design life i.e. 50 MSA as per traffic
projections.
Load Location
A global coordinate system is used to define load locations, the layered system geometry
and the points below the road surface at which results are required. The global coordinate
system is also used to describe the resultant displacements and stress and strain tensors.
The X-axis is usually taken as the direction transverse to the direction of vehicle travel. The
Y-axis is then parallel to the direction of vehicle travel.
Direction of Travel
Y
X
Fig. 7 Global Coordinate System
The Z-axis is vertically downwards with Z = 0 on the pavement surface.

Two alternative formats are available for specifying the points to be used for results calculation:
 An array of equally spaced points along a line parallel to the X-axis;
 A grid of points with uniform spacing in both the X-direction and the Y-direction.
Fig. 8 Coordinates for Results Defined by a Fig. 9 Coordinates for Results Defined by a
Line of Equally Spaced Points Uniform Grid of Points
25
By the alternate of an array of equally spaced points along a line parallel to the X-axis, the
following inputs are opted:
Option 1: Stabilized Base with Granular Sub Base
Z axis: 100.00, X axis: 0.00, Y axis: 0.00
Option 2: Stabilized Base with Stabilized Sub Base

Design CBR
Subgrade strength has the profound influence on the performance of pavement as well the
cost of the project too. CBR of 7 per cent has been considered for the determination of new
pavement composition.
Material Properties
Elastic Modulus (E Value)

The modulus value of the stabilized base composition for base has been derived from
laboratory analysis by 4 point beam method. The average E-Value found is 2600 MPa. For
analysis factor of safety is taken as 1.5.
The E-value for design is 2600/1.5 = 1733.33 say 1700 MPa
Poisson’s Ratio
The Poisson’s ratios taken for analysis are shown in Table below:
Table : Poisson’s Ratio for Different Layers
Sr. No. Layers Poisson’s Ratio

1 Bituminous Layers 0.35
2 Stabilized Aggregate Base 0.25
3 Stabilized Sub base 0.25
4 Granular Sub Base 0.35
5 Sub Grade 0.35
26
Fatigue Criteria
Bituminous Surfacing
Considering the temperature 35oC & VG40 bitumen with reference to IRC:37 page 23, the
elastic modulus of bituminous layer is taken as 3000 MPa.
Now if we put the E-value in given fatigue equation, further derive as
Nf = 2.021* 10-04 x [ 1/έt] 3.89 * [1/MR]0.854
Stabilized Aggregate Layer

The equation for cement stabilized referred in IRC:37 is
N = RF[(113000/ E.804 + 191)/ έt ]12
Where,
RF= reliability factor for cementetious material for failure against fatigue
N= Fatigue life of cementetious material
E= Elastic modulus of cementetious material
έt= tensile strain in the cementetious layer microstrain
Rutting Equation
As large number of data for rutting failure of pavements were obtained from the Research
Scheme of MoSRT&H and other research investigations. Indian Roads Congress set the
allowable rut depth as 20 mm, the rutting equation was obtained as:
N = 4.1656x 10-08[1/έv]4.5337
N = 1.41x 10-08[1/έv]4.5337
Where,
N = Number of cumulative standard axles to produce rutting of 20 mm
έv = Vertical Subgrade Strain (micro strain)
PROPOSED PAVEMENT DESIGN WITH STABILIZER

Considering all parameters and equations given in previous sections of this document, the
software was run. The output sheet of software and the final design proposed with aggregate
crack relief interlayer is given below:
27
Table : Proposed Design with Stabilizer, Option 1 Stabilized Base & Granular Sub Base
Layer Designation Thickness (mm)

Bituminous Concrete 50
Dense Bituminous Macadam 50
Stabilized Base 240
Granular Sub Base 250
Table : Proposed Design with Stabilizer, Option 2 Stabilized Base & Stabilized Sub Base
Layer Designation Thickness (mm)

Bituminous Concrete 50
Dense Bituminous Macadam 50
Stabilized Base 150
Stabilized Sub Base 150
IIT PAVE CALCULATION FOR OPTION 1
28
IIT PAVE CALCULATION FOR OPTION 2
Table : Strain Comparison
Sr. Layer Permissible Location of Actual Micro- Remarks

No. Micro Strain Strain strain Values
as per fatigue Obtained
equations
given in IRC:37
OPTION 1
1 Bituminous Layer 155.28 Bottom of Layer 38.78 Safe
2 Stabilized Base 108.79 Bottom of Layer 106.30 Safe
3 Subgrade 371.69 Top of Subgrade 221.10 Safe
OPTION 2
1 Bituminous Layer 155.28 Bottom of Layer 42.53 Safe
2 Stabilized Base 108.79 Bottom of Layer 99.66 Safe
3 Subgrade 371.69 Top of Subgrade 348.20 Safe
CHECKING OF THE SAFETY OF CEMENTITIOUS BASE DUE TO OVERLOADING

Since there are plenty of single, tandem and tridem axle loads which are far higher than
standard axle load used for pavement design, thickness of cement layer must be checked
for sudden fracture of the brittle material like cemented base due to higher axle loads using
cumulative damage principle. One tandem axle is taken as two single axles and one tridem
axle is taken as three axles carrying equal weight since the interference of stresses at the
cemented base are little due to axle loads being about 1.30 m to 1.40 m apart. All multiple
axle vehicles are combination of single, tandem and tridem axles. The axle load data can be
classified or grouped in such a manner that all tandem and tridem axles can be converted
into single axle repetition for stress analysis. The axle load spectrum of the traffic data is as
29
follows.
Axle load % of Axles Expected Stress, in Stress Fatigue Fatigue

in KN repetitions MPa Ratio Life Life
Consumed
Single Axle
85 31.72 15529536 0.100 0.071 8.24E+10 0.00019
90 6.34 3105907 0.106 0.076 7.31E+10 0.00004
100 4.53 2218505 0.112 0.080 6.49E+10 0.00003
110 2.72 1331103 0.118 0.084 5.76E+10 0.00002
120 2.11 1035302 0.124 0.089 5.11E+10 0.00002
130 1.51 739502 0.130 0.093 4.53E+10 0.00002
140 0.91 443701 0.136 0.097 4.02E+10 0.00001
150 0.00 0 0.142 0.101 3.57E+10 0.00000
160 0.00 0 0.148 0.106 3.17E+10 0.00000
Tandem Axle
170 12.08 5916014 0.154 0.110 2.81E+10 0.00021
180 2.72 1331103 0.160 0.114 2.49E+10 0.00005
190 2.42 1183203 0.166 0.119 2.21E+10 0.00005
200 6.04 2958007 0.172 0.123 1.96E+10 0.00015
210 3.63 1774804 0.178 0.127 1.74E+10 0.00010
220 5.74 2810106 0.184 0.131 1.54E+10 0.00018
230 6.65 3253808 0.190 0.136 1.37E+10 0.00024
240 5.74 2810106 0.196 0.140 1.22E+10 0.00023
250 3.02 1479003 0.202 0.144 1.08E+10 0.00014
260 0.60 295801 0.208 0.149 9.57E+09 0.00003
270 1.21 591601 0.214 0.153 8.49E+09 0.00007
280 0.30 147900 0.220 0.157 7.53E+09 0.00002
290 0.00 0 0.226 0.161 6.69E+09 0.00000
300 0.00 0 0.232 0.166 5.93E+09 0.00000
Cumulative Fatigue : 0.00181
It can be seen that total fatigue damage is less than 1. Hence the pavement is safe and
Cementitious layer will not crack prematurely. There is no superposition of stresses in
Cementitious layer due to location of this layer at shallow depth.
30
ANNEXURE-IV
RECOMMENDED SPECIALIZED IN-SITU SPREADING AND
MIXING MACHINERY FOR STABILIZATION
(Refer Clause 5.2)
Spreader
Photo 6 Tractor Mounted Spreaders
Photo 7 Truck Mounted Spreaders
31
Mixing Machinery
Photo 8 Tractor Power Driven
32
Photo 9 Self Power Driven
33

IRC-SP-89 (Part II) - 2018 - Guideline For Design of Stabilised Pavement

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

IRC-SP-89 (Part II) - 2018 - Guideline For Design of Stabilised Pavement

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

IRC-SP-89 (Part II) - 2018 - Guideline For Design of Stabilised Pavement

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

IRC:SP:89 (Part II)-2018

Guidelines for the Design of

INDIAN ROADS CONGRESS

First Published : May, 2018

(All Rights Reserved. No part of this publication shall be reproduced,

Printed at India Offset Press, Delhi - 110 064

S.No. Description  Page No.

Guidelines for The Design of

Bongirwar, P.L. …… Convenor

2 MECHANISM OF ACCEPTANCE FOR CCS

• Base Document of Product

For Proven Products

3.1 Requirement for Soil Modification/Subgrade Improvement

3.2 Requirement for Stabilized Sub-base/Base

iv. Industrial Waste

Table 1 Gradation Requirements for Sub-base and Base Layer Material

Sr. Gradation Reference

3.3 Test Requirements

Fig. 1 Automated Brushing Apparatus

4 DESIGN METHODOLOGY FOR STABILIZED PAVEMENTS USING CCS/CS

4.2 Design Considerations for Sub-base and Base

4.3 Pavement Design Procedure

Procedure for Wetting and Drying

Procedure for Freezing and Thawing

Report: The report should include the following:

Test Sheet for Durability

Durability Wetting And Drying (As Per IS :4332,Part-4)

Fine Grained Medium Grained Coarse Grained

Table B: Conversion Factors for UCS Test

Specimen Shape and Size Correction Factor (to 150 mm cube)

“7.3.2 Cementitious bases

Determination of elastic modulus beam load test

Photo 5 E-Value Test in Progress

Graph: Load versus Displacement Graph

Table: Calculation of E-Value

Limestone Zone 2 Gravel Sand Clay

Silty Sand Zone 6

Clayey Sand Zone 7

Compressive Strength (MPa)

Fig. 4 Bituminous Pavements with Stabilized Base and Granular Sub-base

Design Traffic Loading (MSA)

Fig. 7 Global Coordinate System

The Z-axis is vertically downwards with Z = 0 on the pavement surface.

Option 2: Stabilized Base with Stabilized Sub Base

Elastic Modulus (E Value)

Table : Poisson’s Ratio for Different Layers

Sr. No. Layers Poisson’s Ratio

Stabilized Aggregate Layer

PROPOSED PAVEMENT DESIGN WITH STABILIZER

Layer Designation Thickness (mm)

Layer Designation Thickness (mm)

IIT PAVE CALCULATION FOR OPTION 1

IIT PAVE CALCULATION FOR OPTION 2

Table : Strain Comparison

Sr. Layer Permissible Location of Actual Micro- Remarks

CHECKING OF THE SAFETY OF CEMENTITIOUS BASE DUE TO OVERLOADING

Axle load % of Axles Expected Stress, in Stress Fatigue Fatigue

Photo 6 Tractor Mounted Spreaders

S.No. Description Page No.